Friday, July 31, 2009

I'm trying like hell to understand what Biden meant by, "We have to keep spending in order to avoid bankruptcy." And, while, yes, it's clearly been an inordinate undertaking, I think that I may have finally come up with something (not that I necessarily agree with it, mind you, but it is in fact logical from Biden's perspective)........................................................................In Biden's mind (and, yes, in the minds of many liberals), the government needs to spend money in order to stimulate the economy. And, yes, folks, once that economy IS stimulated, not only does IT grow, but revenue to the government does as well. Keynesian economics 101, in other words.............................................................................So, no, maybe Biden wasn't totally out of his mind when he uttered this. It was an actual perspective that he was espousing. Whether or not you agree with the perspective, that's another story. It didn't work for Japan in the 90s. It's even debatable whether it worked for Roosevelt in the 30s. But it is, as I said, a perspective.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

V.P. Biden is perilously close to Palin territory. I mean, seriously, "We have to keep spending money to AVOID (my emphasis) bankruptcy." And just this week (for Christ!), he said that the stimulus package was meant to give the economy a "jolt", only to two days later say that the stimulus package was never intended to be a "jolt". Talk about a guy who can't keep it together, huh?............................................................................And the thing is, folks, I actually kind of like the fellow. His honesty, in particular, I find quite refreshing. But we are talking about the number two man in the government here. It would be nice if he (as the President himself would say) "calibrated " his words a little more judiciously. I mean, come on, don't you think?

Monday, July 27, 2009

As far as I can recall, it was Leeds himself who was platitudinous. And even on those rare occasions when he DID make sense at Sassy's - the envelope, I'm telling you, by that point in time....it was burned!! Of course, the very fact that he had patterned himself after all those heroes of yesteryear (a substantial chunk of which had literally curdled, truth be known), sidewinders, etc., his was a simplicity that probably should have been expected. I mean, we do in fact call OURSELVES scholarly, correct?

I really think that Bill O'Reilly should take Sean Hannity out to dinner. In fact, I think he should probably be doing it on a regular basis. I mean, think about it here. Who in the hell over at Fox has done more to make Bill O'Reilly look like a reasonable person than Sean Hannity? And, yes, me-buckos, because of that, is there not at least the littlest gratitude that's appropriate?..............................................................................I mean, don't get me wrong here, folks. O'Reilly can clearly still be a boorish paranoid fool on occasion. But so, too, has he treated Obama with a reasonable degree of respect (not as much as he showed Bush, granted). That and, yes, he can show independence at times. For example, Mr. O'Reilly is against the death penalty. He's also been a fierce critic of Wall Street and, especially, the big oil companies..........................................................................Of course, what makes the far right most infuriated is when O'Reilly criticizes them (right-wing radio, in particular). During the health-care debate, for example, O'Reilly criticized the right for their "not wanting to do anything." That is crazy" was what he also went on to say. I mean, seriously here, can you ever imagine Hannity saying that? That frigging guy NEVER goes off the reservation...........................................................................Now, granted, O'Reilly doesn't necessarily always display this independent streak. He doesn't show it near enough in fact. But like I said at the beginning of this, he's a damn sight better than the fellow who "follows" him.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Here's an interesting tidbit for you. Did you know that the screen legends/beauties, Vivien Leigh and Hedy Lamarr, were born only four days apart? It's true, folks. Leigh was born November 5th, 1913, Lamarr, November 9th. That's like, youza, huh? Talk about one hell of a productive week (two of the most beautiful women ever to come through Hollywood, born in what could only be called rapid succession). I don't know, folks, to me, it's got to be one of the greatest ones EVER!!!

Friday, July 24, 2009

Ralph Peters (Colonel Ralph Peters) is rapidly becoming one of Fox News's most paradoxical figures/analysts. I say this, folks, in that, yes, there have in fact been occasions of lucidity from this fellow. During the more trying times of the Iraq War, for instance, Peters was one of the first military analysts to call for the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld. And he did it, me-buckos, right there on the O'Reilly Factor (this, at a time when O'Reilly was supporting Rumsfeld)! That, in particular, I thought was impressive...........................................................................But lately, folks, I've been noticing less and less this sense of independence from him. IN FACT, one could even go as far as to say that the good colonel is starting to blend in nicely over there. I mean, seriously, I even saw Peters take part in one of those Bush resurrection sessions..................................................................................But it wasn't only that, me-buckos. This frigging guy was absolutely blatant about it. Get this. Peters actually had the audacity to say that history will ultimately judge George W. Bush to be a better president than JFK. Yeah, that's right, folks. That's exactly what he said. George W. Bush was a better president than John F.Kennedy. I shit you not. Talk about going off the partisan deep-end, huh?

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Does anybody out there actually believe that the people in the White House refer to Joe Biden as "The Sheriff"? I mean, seriously, doesn't the entire thing sound utterly contrived/generic - The Sheriff. And, yes, folks, the fact that it's Joe Biden we're talking about here - does that not at least bring into question somewhat, the authenticity? It's like, I don't know about you folks. But me, I've never heard a solitary story about Mr. Biden being a fiscal watch-dog (along the lines of a William Proxmire, say) - EVER!.......................................................................Of course, the mere fact that there was so much crapola in that stimulus package (horror story after horror story having been reported on it) - that alone, I'm saying (the fact that he's clearly been an ineffectual "sheriff", etc.)!

Monday, July 20, 2009

Let me tell you something, folks. I've been a animal lover since I was a kid. I've also been a vegetarian for the past 17-plus years. So, yeah, I actually DO kind of sympathize with P.E.T.A. at times. Unfortunately, so, too, do I find their tactics a damn sight goofy on occasion.........................................................................For example, did you happen to see that recent John Harwood interview of President Obama; the one where the President smacked that pesky fly out of the air? Well, guess what, it seems that P.E.T.A. has cited THAT as yet another example of animal cruelty. Yeah, that's right, a frigging fly!! I mean, I know it's a living creature and all but, please! 1) They're pesky and 2) what was the President supposed to do, put it in a jar, walk outside the studio and release it? It's time for a little perspective - what do you think?........................................................................Oh and, P.S. Mr. President, if you're listening, you can swat as many flies as your heart desires (terrorists, too, but that's a different story). This 17-year vegetarian won't hold it against you - EVER!!

Sunday, July 19, 2009

It appears, folks, that the Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan group) is at least slightly at odds with the Democrats' health-care proposal. They've been saying that 1) it's clearly going to cost more than the Congress and President are saying and 2) it isn't in any way going to reduce health-care costs down the road. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a prescription for success (sorry, I couldn't resist) to me.........................................................................Of course, there is at least one possible saving grace here. As Senator Sanders has stated in arguing for this plan, savings could in fact occur when you figure prevention into the formula. If people are seeing doctors regularly/diseases are caught much earlier, then, yes, that could save a lot of money in terms of end of life care. It's a theory that at least makes sense on paper. There, now if we could only get it to materialize in practice, too. We'd be all frigging set then, huh?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Republicans (as has clearly been their penchant of late) appear to be on the cusp of blowing yet another opportunity. Yep, that's right, I'm referring to the Judge Sotomayor hearings..............................................................................Think about it, folks, you've a female Hispanic candidate who's 1) solidly qualified to serve and 2) while liberal, reasonably within the legal mainstream. It's like, sure, she's not what the Republicans themselves would prefer but, seriously, all she's really doing is replacing another liberal..........................................................................And like I've already stated, she's an Hispanic, a group that the Republicans have clearly been hemorrhaging with. Wouldn't it have made more sense to at least be civil to her (Senator Sessions has problems, folks)? Hell, it probably would have been an even better idea to support her. 1) You're probably not going to get a less liberal nominee from this President. And 2), wouldn't it clearly make more sense to save some of this powder for later?...........................................................................I don't know, folks, it just seems like the Republicans continue to be in a free-fall. Worse than that, it's coming at an extraordinarily inopportune time (for them). This, I'm saying, in that the Democrats themselves are struggling. Any gains that the Republicans could conceivably make in 2010/2012 - they may in fact be squandering that opportunity here. It's a sad, sad situation folks - not just for them, but for the country as well.

It was telling to find out that some of committee chairman Max Baucus's major contributors work for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It's a little bit scary, too..........................................................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. I personally have no idea how to fix this health-care crisis. I look at all the proposals and, yes, virtually every single one of them is flawed. Yes, they all have pluses. But they also all have minuses. My only real point here is that with politicians like Baucus (and, no, folks, he is clearly not the only one who's taking this type of money), true reform of any kind is probably not going to be possible.........................................................................P.S. This, folks, was not at all easy for me. This, I'm saying, in that Senator Baucus (finance committee chair) is one of the few U.S. Senators that I like. He's a moderate, "blue-dog" Democrat/deficit-hawk. I tend to like those types of politicians. But money - that has the potential to corrupt ANYBODY, even the good ones.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

I wonder what that white dyslexic fire-fighter from New Haven Connecticut thinks about Judge Sotomayor's "empathy". My suspicion is not very much (maybe something to do with the fact that he was reamed by it - granted, I'm guessing)..........................................................................Oh, and, yeah, to those of you who claim not to "give a rat's ass" about this fellow, I ask you, what if it was your father? What if he was your frigging husband, for Christ? Or your son? Or your brother? Would you still have such a cavalier attitude? My suspicion (and, yes, I obviously could be wrong here) is that you wouldn't. Here's to hoping that you wouldn't, anyway.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

One of the more unusual talking-points made by those on the lunatic fringe involves President Eisenhower. It is specifically stated by these folks that Eisenhower ultimately allowed (some even go as far as to infer senility here) his administration to be hijacked by a group of right-wingers (the Dulles brothers, most specifically). It was this element, they go on to say, that prompted Ike to interfere in the Vietnamese elections, topple the Democratically elected government in Iran, etc...........................................................................Wow. That's kind of an interesting theory, don't you think - especially as it pertains to the Iranian situation? Unfortunately (and, yes, as is almost always the case with these strident/absolutist type theories), it's also a theory that leaves out a lot of incongruities...........................................................................For example, if the Eisenhower administration had been hijacked by the right, why then did the President adamantly refuse to assist the French at Diem Bien Phu (the French essentially groveled for our assistance)? So, too, why did he similarly refuse to come to the aid of the British (our most trusted ally, supposedly) at Suez? It seems as if the right-wing didn't get to the President on at least these two occasions..............................................................................Of course, the biggest/most relevant question to ask is this. If the right-wing had truly come to dominate this Presidency, then why did Eisenhower cancel a spate of expensive weapons systems and, instead, use this money to fully fund the interstate highway system? I don't know, at least that would be my main question........................................................................................All of this, of course, isn't to say that Eisenhower didn't make mistakes. As I've pointed out, the U.S.'s insertion of the Shah in Iran was hugely couterproductive (and, yes, a miscalculation that continues to haunt us). But, seriously, folks, to say that the Eisenhower administration was a tool of the right, that's about as sensical as saying that the Clinton administration was left-wing. It's a huge oversimplification (partisan as hell, too), in other words.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Sean Hannity interviewing Karl Rove. Keith Olbermann interviewing Chris Hayes (The Nation). I don't know, folks, I just don't understand this crap. I mean, seriously, what's the purpose here? To me, it's just basically one guy rubber-stamping what the other one is saying. Oh, wait a minute, let me correct myself here. Sometimes the interviewee will actually expound upon the interviewer. Yep, that's right, folks, no conflict, no dissonance - literally nothing at all that pushes the discussion forward. Youza, huh?...............................................................................I mean, unless you're a partisan whose only interest is in having your own views groomed, I just for the life of me come up with a plausible reason to watch this crap. At the very least, it makes for some really boring television (provocation to your senses, aside). Seriously, am I wrong here?

Sunday, July 12, 2009

The thing that I most want to know about Fox's Sean Hannity is this. When the fellow puts forth one of those deceptive story lines of his (some would prefer to call them talking points and, yes, I'm totally fine with that), is he purposefully trying to deceive the audience with them (lie, in other words)? OR, is it more along the lines of him simply being an idiot/true believer?................................................................................Me, I have to admit it, folks, in the beginning, I actually thought that it was the latter. This, I'm saying, in that, truly, all you really have to do is listen to the fellow. I think it's pretty obvious that he isn't a rocket-scientist. But, yes,I then started thinking more about it. It isn't just him who bears responsibility for that show. I mean, doesn't he also have writers, producers, program directors - all sorts of folks like that propping him up? They all can't be frigging knuckle-draggers, for Christ!............................................................................I don't know, to me, it's really starting to look more like a coordinated effort here. I mean, seriously, don't you think so?..............................................................................P.S. This, of course, isn't to imply that Mr. Hannity ISN'T an idiot. He obviously can be - and frequently. All that I'm trying to say here is that, yes, he is an idiot. But he's also an idiot who's capable of lying. The worst of both worlds, in other words.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

If you're ever passing through Connecticut, and you only have the time to visit one of our 169 towns, might I strongly recommend the village of Guilford. It is an absolutely beautiful town, steeped in history, and it's right off of Route 1............................................................................First of all, there's that lovely and expansive green of theirs. It's totally awesome. In fact, folks, Guilford probably has the most beautiful (not to mention, fascinating) town green in all of New England (stiff competition obviously abounding - Salem Mass, Keene New Hampshire, Brattelboro Vermont, etc., etc.). And it isn't just the beauty and/or the size of it. Affixed to the green on all four sides are shops, cafes/restauants, churches, historic homes, all sorts of interesting diversions. I mean, seriously, you can literally spend an entire afternoon there; lounging, exploring, whatever you want!.......................................................................And, no, me-buckos, it isn't all that touristy, either. That I find to be extremely appealing. That along with the loads and loads of free public parking. Just try and compare THAT to Salem Mass...............................................................................P.S. I should probably also mention that the women are extremely hot in Guilford. This, as an inducement for the husbands out there.

Friday, July 10, 2009

According to a recent Quinnipiac Poll, President Obama's approval ratings have dipped below 50% in Ohio. Several polls in Virginia are showing similar numbers for the President. I don't know, that sounds like a pretty damned interesting news story to me. I mean, don't you think so?........................................................................Well, according to Keith Olbermann, it just doesn't quite cut it. It appears that Mr. Olbermann only covers the President's approval ratings when they're of a more robust nature. But, please, don't despair, my friends. He's more than made up for it by covering the plummeting ratings of yet another famous politician. Yep, you got it. Now that the beleaguered (and, yes, now former) Alaska governor's popularity is waning (the biggest reduction in hers emanating from within the independent ranks), Olbermann is absolutely cheap-suiting THAT situation...........................................................................And he's criticizing the fact that Palin resigned. It's like, what (I felt like asking the genius), would you have felt better if she had STAYED in office? I mean, seriously, if she's such an insipid and ineffectual leader, isn't it in fact better that she DOES step down?...........................................................................I don't know, folks, it just seems that whatever this woman ends up doing with her life (even if she finds a cure for cancer, I'm saying!), Olbermann will find a way to dis her on it. Kind of like what Hannity does with the President.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

On this evening's "Hannity", the intrepid reporter shared some rather interesting data with us. He sited, specifically, a statistic which shows that counties that voted for Obama, when all is said and done, will ultimately receive twice as much stimulus money as those that voted for McCain..............................................................................Wow, huh? Well, at least that was my initial reaction to the numbers. After a few minutes, I started thinking, gee, could there possibly be one or two other distinctions going on here? Like, for instance, what are the populations of these counties? Democratic areas tend to be more densely populated. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the counties which Obama carried would also have more people? I don't know, to me, a much more fair and square analysis would be to look at this trend more from a per capita perspective. Are these Obama leaning counties getting more stimulus money per capita? If in fact Mr. Hannity can provide me some compelling numbers along these lines, then, yes, maybe I'll listen to him. As it stands now, I'm at least a little skeptical.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

I don't know, folks, I guess I would consider myself a fairly proud individual. Not in the sense that I consider myself special or anything. Clearly, I know that that just isn't the case. No, I'm talking more in terms of not being one of those guys who constantly feels the need to kiss people's asses - that type of being a proud fellow...........................................................................But, I'm also telling you, if the great Barbara Stanwyck (circa 1935-1945) had ever asked me to bend over and pick up a pile of dog-shit (bare-handedly, mind you), I'd have flat-out done it, folks. I would have even gone so far as to do it with a smile on my face. Seriously. Hell/youza, I probably would have done it in a manner that would have made the Fred MacMurray character in Double Indemnity look WAY triumphant, look like a he-man, look like a guy who didn't need a spinal transplant, etc..............................................................................Pride, in other words - it just might have taken a lengthy vacation with THAT femme fatal around. Reooowww!!

Hey, Congressman King, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think about Michael Jackson? LOL..................................................................Seriously, though, did you have the chance to catch any of that little beat-down? Talk about a major-league bitch-slapping, huh? I mean, don't get me wrong here. I was never a big Michael Jackson fan, either. At the very least, I considered the guy a schlockmeister - and, yes, an inappropriate one, at that (this, I'm saying, in that, even if he didn't molest children, he brought them into his bed, for Christ!) But, come on (I wanted to tell the congressman), they haven't even buried this poor guy yet. And as even someone as bellicose as Pat Buchanan has stated, when the good Lord has his hands on a person, it's probably time for the rest of us to let go. I mean, don't you think so - at least for a while?

Sunday, July 5, 2009

I have absolutely no idea what Sarah Palin is doing here, folks. I mean, sure, if she's decided that she's flat-out sick of politics, wants to pack it in, etc., fine. That I understand (and, no, I can't really blame her, either - the way that she's been mistreated by the press, etc.). If, however, she still has an ultimate design on the Presidency, then, no, what the governor's doing here is utterly incomprehensible (to me, anyway).............................................................................I mean, think about it here. What is it that Mrs. Palin needs more than anything else? Yeah, that's right, something to put on her resume! And, yes, me-buckos, what could be better for that than finishing off her first term as Alaska's governor? Now I understand that a lot of people are saying that this decision will free her up so she can start campaigning. But come on, it's only 2009, and we're only half way through it!! She would, if in fact she finished her term, have ample time to put together an operation..................................................................................Of course, an even more damaging aspect to this decision is the fact that it allows her political adversaries (and, yes, there are many, MANY, of them out there - OF BOTH PARTIES!!) to label her a quitter. That characterization alone could sink her. We'll just have to see, though, huh?

Saturday, July 4, 2009

So, how in the hell does this "Fairness Doctrine" work? Rush Limbaugh would get to do his shpeel for a while? And then, what, some Keith Olbermann type would get the microphone and counter him? Is that how you seriously propose that this thing would work? Hm, that's interesting...........................................................................This, I'm saying, in that, sure, it sounds like it might be entertaining and all (God-damned humorous, one might even goes as far as to say). But, ladies and gentlemen, it also sounds like one would be running a radio station like it's a bunch of nasty bullshit. I mean, come on here, what about the frigging 40% of us who don't particularly care for either Limbaugh OR Olbermann? Who in the hell is going to be speaking to/for us? It doesn't sound like anybody will. Oh well, at least we'll still have that 3-6 ring circus to constantly divert/amuse us. Oh, and the classic rock station, too. Heaven forbid that I forget about that.

Friday, July 3, 2009

So, Mike, you think you've never lost an argument, huh? Wow. That's some interesting (not to mention egotistical, self-serving, delusional, etc.) shit you got there, bro. But you know who else thinks that they've never lost an argument? I'll tell you. Children. Yeah, that's right, Mike. Children NEVER, EVER, think that they're wrong. And, while, yes, sometimes they're actually kinda cute when get that way (well, especially when they're not YOUR kids), you, Mike, you're in your frigging 30s. It isn't anywhere near that cute when you do it ("look at me, I'm right again, yada, yada, yada"). Sorry, but it isn't........................................................................In all seriousness, though, these are extremely complicated issues. And, no, me-bucko, not a one of them seems to have a perfect solution, either. Take the current health-care crisis, for instance. Yes, Mike, there ARE advantages to a single-payer health-care system. But, unfortunately, so, too, are there disadvantages. It is ALL about intellectual honesty, bro. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, argue for your positions and all, but, please, so, too, hold out for at least the slightest possibility that you might in fact be wrong. BECAUSE, believe me, there's a rock-solid 50% chance that you may be.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

There's this one thing about "Cap and Trade" (i.e., the energy bill recently passed by the House) that seriously puzzles me. How do all of these things lessen global warming if China, India, etc. continue to grow (their economies) and pollute with impunity? And couldn't this legislation even go as far as to increase the level of greenhouse gasses that some of these companies emit? This, I'm saying, in that, what if some of these businesses decide that they need to go overseas for survival - and, yes, to a country that has even lesser air quality standards than we do? Talk about the law of unintended consequences, huh?.......................................................................And then, of course, there's the economic unfairness of it. We're asking American companies and individuals to make a series of sacrifices that these other emerging super-powers AREN'T making. And we're doing it in the middle of the worst economic down-turn in decades. I don't know. It just doesn't make any sense to me.